The government doesn’t care about those in poverty. Dependence on government assistance, ultimately the government itself, places the poverty-stricken under government control. The government completely controls what happens to them and that’s exactly how they want it if they are going to be dishing out money and social policy can’t do much about that. As cynical as this statement is, overflowing with indignation and ignorance, it has summed up my unspoken thoughts on poverty and what the government is doing about it. Reading Deparle sent this notion into two opposing streams of thought. On one side, the government does care about poverty, but for reasons linked more closely to elections, budgets and public image rather than genuine concern for people’s lives. Therefore, the government will turn an ear to social policy when there is something at stake. For example, in American Dream, Clinton’s plight to end welfare as we know it, was heavily influenced by his presidential campaign and that “half this election is about winning the southern black vote”(Deparle, p.8). With such a huge issue driving his campaign, upon becoming President he had no choice but to do something about welfare, it was the platform on which his entire campaign stood. His comment, “We should insist that people move off the welfare rolls and onto the work rolls” (Deparle, p.1) clearly shows how limited his understanding of poverty was. And on the other side, the government does not necessarily “care”, depending upon how care is defined. Instead of caring, the government is simply burdened by poverty, it’s like that little brother who is always in the way. They wouldn’t do anything about it, if poverty weren’t always tugging at its shirt. In writing this, I see how similar these streams of thought actually are…ok they are the exact same. After reading Deparle, I came to the conclusion that social policy has the ability to combat poverty if the government has specific need for it. Sadly, social policy makers have to be privy to this and surge in when those opportunities arise.
Angie’s having to hide her fast-food job clearly highlights the liberty-welfare tradeoff. She knew if it was found that she was working, her welfare would be cut off and she’d no longer be able to support her children. She had to sacrifice her liberty to work in order to maintain a welfare check (which is given to families struggling to find work, how backwards is that?), neither of which would support her family on it’s own. The system is not designed for participants to leave, their only options are either to barely make it on welfare or barely make it on a minimum wage job. This leaves little to no room for re-attaining freedom, especially with no educational advancement opportunities. “Without the security of having one’s basic needs met, a person can’t make free choices” (Stone, p.126). Jewell, Opal and Angie all had little education or specialized training, so jobs were extremely limited. They were in permanent survival mode and, of course, they weren’t carrying dreams of being doctors or lawyers, because that was unlike anything they’d seen around them. For these reasons, I do think Deparle believes there is a liberty-welfare tradeoff, because he records this tradeoff in each of these women’s story. Stone (2012) states “Government can provide rights to protect dependent people from domination “(p.127), but who is protecting them from the government?
Kierra, I understand your view on how the government does not care about those in poverty, but I think they do. I think the government cares about those in poverty but NOT the way we would like them to. The government cares that those in poverty are around so they have that sense of control, but they do not care about their well being and that they can barely survive off their small welfare check.
“Without the security of having one’s basic needs met, a person can’t make free choices” (Stone, p.126).
Stone would say that this quote means there is not a liberty trade off. In other words – if I am taxed to provide resources to poor families so they can have he security of having their basic needs met – then all of s benefit and I am not sacrificing my liberty.
My only observation about your other assessments – which are well stated – is that perhaps we are trying to solve the wrong things. If what we want is to allow people the opportunity to succeed, we need to do more than just provide minimum relief.
Also, while it is true that the political stream has a major influence on how social policy is created, enacted and implemented, there are other folks involved in the development of social policy as well, And some of them are pretty smart – they just can’t get passed our political process and our societal ingrained prejudices.
I am more optimistic than any of you – only because I have stood beside individuals who have made their way out of poverty – with the help of welfare and other programs. Sometimes the stories are more powerful than the numbers.